Heartland

markfiend wrote:

nowayjose wrote:

Pista wrote: It's like taking trolling to a whole new level in that the world is given to perceive Islam as being the root of all evil.

Well, in that part of the world, it certainly is.

Nice to see your usual insightful commentary.

It's not like they're a bunch of radical Presbyterians, Mark.

markfiend wrote:

nowayjose wrote:

Pista wrote: It's like taking trolling to a whole new level in that the world is given to perceive Islam as being the root of all evil.

Well, in that part of the world, it certainly is.

Nice to see your usual insightful commentary.

This was a childish thing for me to post and I apologise.

markfiend wrote:

markfiend wrote:

nowayjose wrote: Well, in that part of the world, it certainly is.

Nice to see your usual insightful commentary.

This was a childish thing for me to post and I apologise.

but in all fairness it isn't Islam that is the root of all evil. the actions of "fanatical sectarians zealots" or "radicalised religious lunatics" who happen to be Islamic do not make Islam the root of all evil. at worst as an organised religion Islam is at fault but only if you are saying "organised religion is the root of all evil" which i gather no-one is.

the latest guy to be beheaded was working as a volunteer for a muslim children's charity. click
if islam is the root of all evil how does that work?

Well yeah, I don't agree with nowayjose but I could have said so without being such an arse about it.

I've been rethinking a lot of things recently; I still think that god-belief of any stripe is fatuous nonsense but my thinking is more in line with the idea that religion is used as an excuse by the power-hungry. Obviously religions with strong authoritarian bases such as the Abrahamic faiths are more easily (ab)used in this way. But I don't think IS are representative of Islam any more than I think that the Westboro Baptists are representative of Christianity.

Part of this rethinking has been kindled by a number of controversies within the "Atheism movement". It has become clear to me that contrary to what I had expected, atheism is no guarantee, or even indicator, of better behaviour or of clearer thinking. A number of leading lights in the movement have revealed themselves to be willing to indulge in horribly sexist rhetoric (Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) and even - how shall I put this - sexual behaviour that regards other people's consent as irrelevant (Michael Shermer). I want nothing to do with these people or their supporters.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: but in all fairness it isn't Islam that is the root of all evil. the actions of "fanatical sectarians zealots" or "radicalised religious lunatics" who happen to be Islamic do not make Islam the root of all evil. at worst as an organised religion Islam is at fault but only if you are saying "organised religion is the root of all evil" which i gather no-one is.

I'm certainly not.
Being an atheist, I find the notion of religion slightly baffling really. But hey! To each their own right?
The thing about faith is that people generally use it as a "crutch" or a "shield" & I suppose that's exactly what it ought to be. Can't see owt wrong with that.
But these barbarians are using it as a weapon or a threat & effectively alienating people who follow the Muslim faith all over the world.
They harp on about persecution but aren't doing themselves or other Muslims many favours by marching under the guise of Islam & hacking peoples' heads off.

But, back on point. They are getting money from somewhere & that's how they should be stopped. Starve them of funding & they'll subside.
Trouble is, there will only be another bunch waiting to fill their shoes sooner or later.

My very limited understanding is that the Muslim Faith is basically one of tolerance.

To say these ISIS are Moslem therefore all Moslems are ISIS is to say that all NAZIs were Christians, therefore all Christians were NAZIs

It does not apply.

Yeah well said.

markfiend wrote:Well yeah, I don't agree with nowayjose but I could have said so without being such an arse about it.

I've been rethinking a lot of things recently; I still think that god-belief of any stripe is fatuous nonsense but my thinking is more in line with the idea that religion is used as an excuse by the power-hungry. Obviously religions with strong authoritarian bases such as the Abrahamic faiths are more easily (ab)used in this way. But I don't think IS are representative of Islam any more than I think that the Westboro Baptists are representative of Christianity.

Part of this rethinking has been kindled by a number of controversies within the "Atheism movement". It has become clear to me that contrary to what I had expected, atheism is no guarantee, or even indicator, of better behaviour or of clearer thinking. A number of leading lights in the movement have revealed themselves to be willing to indulge in horribly sexist rhetoric (Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) and even - how shall I put this - sexual behaviour that regards other people's consent as irrelevant (Michael Shermer). I want nothing to do with these people or their supporters.

as someone who doesn't believe in god, and despises all unassented to systems of control over others -or, if assented to, systems of control which negates the responsibility of the individuals to govern themselves should they possess the ability to do so, and who is comparatively intelligent (certainly intelligent enought to distinguish one's arse from one's elbow) i have no problem in referring to my "atheism" as gnosticism: i know there is no god. if the miracle of pure chaos isn't good enough for you then you haven't thought it through. [/arrogance]

million voices wrote:My very limited understanding is that the Muslim Faith is basically one of tolerance.

To say these ISIS are Moslem therefore all Moslems are ISIS is to say that all NAZIs were Christians, therefore all Christians were NAZIs

It does not apply.

exactly.

million voices wrote:My very limited understanding is that the Muslim Faith is basically one of tolerance.

I don't want to stir up any more controversy but I seriously wonder how you arrive at such a conclusion.

Shia Muslims view intolerance as an adversary of the faith.
It's one of their core beliefs

nowayjose wrote:

million voices wrote:My very limited understanding is that the Muslim Faith is basically one of tolerance.

I don't want to stir up any more controversy but I seriously wonder how you arrive at such a conclusion.

Not to speak for million voices but... because there are about two billion Muslims in the world, and the vast majority of them reject the sort of nonsense that IS are doing in their name. Check out #muslimapologies

Seriously, it is like blaming all Christians for the excesses of the Westboro Baptists. And I should know, that's something I've done myself, not too long ago. And I was wrong.

nowayjose wrote:

million voices wrote:My very limited understanding is that the Muslim Faith is basically one of tolerance.

I don't want to stir up any more controversy but I seriously wonder how you arrive at such a conclusion.

ok lets try another approach. can i ask, how many muslims do you actually know? i don't necessarily mean know well, but live around, interact with, work with, say " morning" to as you would anyone else you may randomly walk past, help across the road i f they're elderly, have knock on your door to ask for their football back if they're young, etc etc? any? many? can you even spot a muslim without them wearing a burkha, or exiting a mosque or a halal butchers, actually distinguish them from any other non-white person?
i live in leicester (england) which is one of the most multi-cultural centres of population in the country. i think we may even have the second or third largest hindi population-per-head outside of india. thats not in need of citation or qualification, in fact it's not important beyond simply showing how integrated a society andd community we have become. i have grown up with, been to school with (an important one that because as children there are situations where no outside prejudice or ignorance carries any weight beyond the rules, rites and etiquettes of childhood) worked with, fought with, fucked with, liked, loved, hated, despised and been completely indifferent to Sikhs, hindus, muslims, christians (and others no doubt) of indian, pakistani, bangladeshi, african-asian -ie ugandan, kenyan- black-african, afro-carribean origin.i have been as infuriated with people's cultural differences -where it has affected me- as i have been tolerant and open-minded of others peoples cultural differences. and to be honest, apart from a noticeable yet understandable defensiveness amongst the younger muslims in the face of the last 14 years or so of being scrutunised at best, victimised /scapegoated at worst, there is no one culture or religion that is in any fucking way whatsoever better or worse than any other. in fact when i moved into my latest home there were two muslim families who noticing that i was taking furniture thrown out for refuse from other flats, and learning that i had absolutely nothing to start with, were falling over themselves to find things that they could give me -things they had otherwise had no intention of getting rid of- out of kindness and compassion. not one white christian offered me anything other than a "there goes the neighbourhood" look of distatste.
THAT'S where my conclusions come from. where do yours?

Exactly. eastmidswhizzkid !!!

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: ok lets try another approach ...

So what you say is there are many muslims that are friendly in daily life. I do not dispute this. I live in Berlin and there are many muslims over here aswell and I tend to get along well with those that I meet. Maybe it's because I'm generally a friendly person. However, I'm not stupid. Once they become a majority, things become very different indeed. Not because they're bad people but because of cultural dynamics that are rooted in this faith. This can be observed in any country that has a muslim majority. All muslim countries were once non-muslim.
The Iranians are not all arseholes. It's the Koran that tells them to kill apostates, gays and adulterers. And they follow it to the letter.
Even in Turkey, which is the only officially secular country with a Mohammedan majority, Christians are often persecuted, even killed and are generally not allowed to build new churches or repair existing ones.
The Koran rails against non-believers in over 300 verses; insulting, defaming, threatening us and instructing its followers to subjugate or kill us and generally has nothing but the fires of hell for those who do not do 100% as 'Allah' commands. If this is called tolerance, then I wonder what intolerance would look like?

nowayjose wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: ok lets try another approach ...

So what you say is there are many muslims that are friendly in daily life. I do not dispute this. I live in Berlin and there are many muslims over here aswell and I tend to get along well with those that I meet. Maybe it's because I'm generally a friendly person. However, I'm not stupid. Once they become a majority, things become very different indeed. Not because they're bad people but because of cultural dynamics that are rooted in this faith. This can be observed in any country that has a muslim majority. All muslim countries were once non-muslim.
The Iranians are not all arseholes. It's the Koran that tells them to kill apostates, gays and adulterers. And they follow it to the letter.
Even in Turkey, which is the only officially secular country with a Mohammedan majority, Christians are often persecuted, even killed and are generally not allowed to build new churches or repair existing ones.
The Koran rails against non-believers in over 300 verses; insulting, defaming, threatening us and instructing its followers to subjugate or kill us and generally has nothing but the fires of hell for those who do not do 100% as 'Allah' commands. If this is called tolerance, then I wonder what intolerance would look like?

but it is individuals who make up any system, who choose to act in any given way. if the majority of muslims act in a way that is tolerant and friendly and acceptable then that is how we should judge the majority of muslims. if the majority of muslims when describing the doctrines of their faith say that their faith is a peaceful one and that they abhor the violent practices of the few, then that is what we should accept as being the doctrnes of that faith as interpreted and followed by the majority. words telling you to kill do not make you kill. most people of any religion, race, football team, musical taste, whatever do what they want if allowed to. thats why most people try to feed their kids, keep their families safe, live long happy lives. nutcasses spoil it for the rest of us. power-hungry idiots and people deperate to keep their power sp[oil it for the rest of us. muslims are no fucking different. the MAJORITY are ok because deep down the MAJORITY want the same thing as we do: to live and enable our children to live.
btw whilst ISIS were cutting off that poor bastards head the Leicester Muslim Council were -in the middle of the night- holding a vigil in the middle of the city centre to try and stop that very act. ok it was never going to stop it happening, but, regardless, what were YOU doing?

perhaps if you truly want to examine intolerance you should get yourself a mirror.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: if the majority of muslims when describing the doctrines of their faith say that their faith is a peaceful one and that they abhor the violent practices of the few, then that is what we should accept as being the doctrnes of that faith as interpreted and followed by the majority.

The problem is, if the majority is peaceful and abhors the violent practices of the few, then why do the few have such a free reign in performing their deeds? The answer might be because the majority of people are typically followers. They either quietly support the extremist few, or they are too intimidated to protest, or they don't care because it doesn't affect them. In any way, it's always a violent minority which sets the tune. You cannot depend on sympathy and protection from a majority. The jews learned this the hard way in 1933 (and a couple times earlier, aswell).

btw whilst ISIS were cutting off that poor bastards head the Leicester Muslim Council were -in the middle of the night- holding a vigil in the middle of the city centre to try and stop that very act.

That's very nice of them. I'm quite sure some of them actually cared.

perhaps if you truly want to examine intolerance you should get yourself a mirror.

I'm certainly not without prejudice or error in judgment.

nowayjose wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: if the majority of muslims when describing the doctrines of their faith say that their faith is a peaceful one and that they abhor the violent practices of the few, then that is what we should accept as being the doctrnes of that faith as interpreted and followed by the majority.

The problem is, if the majority is peaceful and abhors the violent practices of the few, then why do the few have such a free reign in performing their deeds?

then surely everyone is guilty of allowing that free reign, regardless of their professed religious beliefs. and undoubtedly that IS the case, why are peaceful non-violent muslims any more responsible for the attrocities of the few than peaceful non-violent people of any other denomination? you are defeating your own argument.

nowayjose wrote:The answer might be because the majority of people are typically followers. They either quietly support the extremist few, or they are too intimidated to protest, or they don't care because it doesn't affect them. In any way, it's always a violent minority which sets the tune.

but therefore by your argument the "followers" would have no need to protest against the actions of the few. in fact if it is cowardice you are accusing these people of then surely rather than openly opposing/disavowing themselves of the practices of the powerful few who are calling the tune they would simply say nothing, or actively back the actions of the few and thus become part of the powerful many. and the analogy with 1930's germany doesn't work because in that situation the "followers" who (by inaction) enabled the atrocities were people who DIDN'T speak out against them.

nowayjose wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:btw whilst ISIS were cutting off that poor bastards head the Leicester Muslim Council were -in the middle of the night- holding a vigil in the middle of the city centre to try and stop that very act.

That's very nice of them. I'm quite sure some of them actually cared.

otherwise why were they there? certainly not because they had to be.

nowayjose wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:perhaps if you truly want to examine intolerance you should get yourself a mirror.

I'm certainly not without prejudice or error in judgment.

and that's where your argument self-destructs completely. until you ARE without prejudice you will be wide open to errors in judgement. the very concept of pre-judging is inherently flawed when it comes to the process of making sound, reasoned judgements.

respectfully, open your mind or shut your mouth.

You will notice very different behavior depend on the percent of people that follow the muslim faith and all the rest of society (Buddists, Christians, Hindus. Atheists, Agnosticists, Jews etc ).
When they are lower than 2% everything seems to work nice, when they reach 8-10% something starts to change and if they get over 18% they could take over your country in a couple of weeks. Their favorite method is the question: What do you prefer to keep your head or your faith (or no faith for Atheists version) ?
And the world works like that since 7th century AD
Empires crushed down like sand castles against that kind of faith, what makes you think that westerns can resist them?

The only thing you have to do is to put the 'fun' out of 'fundamentalism' and you're halfway there...

Nothing else will work.

IZ.

One thing that gives me serious cause for concern is that I'm hearing rhetoric about the "Muslim problem" which is very reminiscent of that about the "Jewish problem" from 80 years ago. And some of the solutions being suggested have a deeply worrying finality to them.

Yeah, I know, Godwin's law, but still...

(Edit to add: this isn't aimed at anyone on this thread, just a general observation.)

I think it boils down to a simple "us vs. them" problem, but some people (also not anyone in this thread) tend to draw the "them" circle worryingly wide. I really hope that most people do understand the difference between "practitioners of a faith" and "terrorist scum".

rien wrote:I think it boils down to a simple "us vs. them" problem, but some people (also not anyone in this thread) tend to draw the "them" circle worryingly wide. I really hope that most people do understand the difference between "practitioners of a faith" and "terrorist scum".

may i draw the further distinction between "terrorists" who may be justifiably called "freedom-fighters" from another's viewpoint, and "murdering scum". the army known as ISIS are murdering scum, and the only freedom they seem to be fighting for is their own freedom to massacre any who get in their way.